SOHAN LAL Vs. HARI SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sohan Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Hari Singh and others defendants from interfering with his cultivating possession and/or taking forcible possession from him in respect of 17 kanals and 19 Marlas of agricultural land situate in khasras No. 259/24 and 267/4-7 of village Mandkola. The contention of the plaintiff was that he was in possession of the land in dispute as a non-occupancy tenant and he had sown Rabi crop of 1964. The defendants were owners of the land in suit as co-sharers and were bent upon ousting the plaintiff from the land in dispute and to gather the standing crops. Consequently, the suit was filed for claiming a permanent injunction. The suit was contested on various grounds. The main plea however, was that the plaintiff had relinquished the possession of the land in dispute on receipt of Rs. 500/- on 19th July, 1963. The following issues were framed by the trial Court -

(2.) On an appeal by the defendants, the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff has come to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) The first appellate Court has not given separate findings on the various issues framed by the trial Court. It was, however, not disputed before the first appellate Court that the plaintiff was, in fact, tenant over the suit land prior to July, 1963. The main point argued before it was that on1 19th July, 1963 the plaintiff received Rs. 500/- from the defendants and gave up his tenancy rights vide the document marked as Exhibit D.1. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge without expressing any opinion as to the necessity of the registration of Exhibit D.1 came to conclusion that the document could be certainly looked into for ascertaining the nature of the plaintiff's possession. According to him, it could surely through light as to whether the present possession of the plaintiff was as a tenant or a mere trespasser after the termination of his tenancy. With regard to the same document (Exhibit D.1) a firm finding was however recorded by him that it was actually executed by the plaintiff after the receipt of Rs. 500/- and after relinquishing his tenancy over the suit land. He consequently came to the conclusion that the plaintiff ceased to be the tenant over the suit and from 19th July, 1964 onward on receipt of Rs. 500/-. He came observed that if thereafter the plaintiff obtained the possession the same was forcible and as a trespasser.